Let Them Eat Cake Gender, Nationalism and Tyranny in Revolutionary France and Russia By Hugh Eldred-Grigg A thesis Submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Victoria University of Wellington 2010 1 ABSTRACT The origin of the phrase ‘let them eat cake’ is obscure. Conversely, it is widely understood that the woman whose name is most associated with the phrase, Marie Antoinette, the last pre-revolutionary Queen of France, never said it. But despite its lack of veracity the phrase demonstrates neatly the degree of disdain and anger directed at the Queen to the point where hatred becomes a useful term. This hatred was not unique to Marie Antoinette. While there is no phrase to highlight her role in the public eye, Alexandra Fedorovna, the last Czarina of Russia, was the focus of parallel disdain. Despite the timescale their situations are strikingly similar. The French and Russian revolutions form the backdrop for the close of these two women’s lives. Political historians de-emphasise the role of individual actors in shaping events, but the events of individual lives – or more precisely, the way in which those events are interpreted in the public sphere – can provide an insight into the impersonal events that constitute noteworthy targets of analysis. This study identifies a common dynamic that explains the reason why Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Fedorovna were both the target of such intense hatred during the revolutions that overthrew the systems they were part of and contributed collectively and individually to the shaping of the modern world. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people, without whom this thesis could not have been completed. Whether they provided mentoring, emotional support, timely proof-reading or insight into the subject matter, I owe each of them my thanks. Needless to say any faults in this thesis are my own. Aaron Wells Aidenn Ossorio Andrew Smith Catherine Spiers Christian Walker Cordelia Black Hannah Van Voorthuysen Lauree Hunter Malcolm McKinnon Noel Ballantyne Regan O'Neill Richard Jones Robyn Stroll Rochelle Anne Sarah Jane Barnett Sarah Newman Steve Barnes Steven Eldred-Grigg 3 And of course I would like to give particular thanks to my supervisor, Jon Johansson, whose support for my intellectual endeavours began many years before he formally became my thesis supervisor, and whose advice and support I hope to continue to be able to benefit from in the future. Hugh Eldred-Grigg July 2010 4 CONTENTS: Introduction.....................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: The Ideology of Monarchy in France and Russia.....................19 Chapter 2: Gender and France......................................................................40 Chapter 3: Gender and Russia.......................................................................63 Chapter 4: France and Nationalism...............................................................86 Chapter 5: Russia and Nationalism................................................................106 Chapter 6: France and Tyranny.....................................................................130 Chapter 7: Russia and Tyranny......................................................................152 Chapter 8: Conclusions....................................................................................185 Appendix: Bibliography...................................................................................205 5 INTRODUCTION: My dear philosopher, doesn’t this appear to you to be the century of revolutions? - Voltaire to d’Alembert Comparing revolutions: One of the more enduring legacies of the fall of the French monarchy is the popularity of the descriptive use of the word ‘revolution’ to apply to these events and others like them. The term is a contested one and has often been required to carry a very heavy conceptual weight, particularly among Marxist thinkers. At its least contested ‘revolution’ is a term that is appended to a historical event that involves a significant uprooting of established political practices. Whether or not a certain event can be considered a ‘revolution’ rather than a ‘revolt’, an ‘uprising’, a ‘civil war’ or one of many other terms available is a question that often attracts debate. But even the most minimalist, strict interpretations of the word will usually cede a handful of cases. In these cases the ‘revolution’ qualifier seems to be universally accepted. The least controversial of these events would be the French revolution, which spawned the term, and the Russian revolution in 1917. It is tempting to dismiss the similarities between the revolutions of France and Russia as not advancing far beyond the shared nomenclature and a few correspondences that are either so broad (the prior monarchical government) or so narrow (the fact that both monarchs had only a single male heir) as to be meaningless. But while acknowledging the existence of very significant divergences in the contexts in which the French and Russian revolutionaries respectively operated is obligatory for any serious student of history, it has been suggested that the similarities are more than trivial. In her comparative study Theda Skocpol sees the cause of the breakdown of central 6 authority that made revolution possible as the existence of significant barriers to attempts to make the state more administratively efficient through top-down reforms.1 Although there is a reason to take issue with Skocpol’s focus on international diplomacy as stimulating the need for these reforms, the basic point is sufficiently valid to confirm that in comparing France and Russia we are comparing like with like. Comparing like with like is of course the most important qualifier for any comparative study, but in the context of political science it is not the only one. In his 1971 paper Arend Lijphardt stated that comparative political studies are at their best when they have large sample sizes, when the case studies that constitute the sample sizes are as similar as possible in order to reduce the number of operative variables, when the analysis focuses on the operative variables and when variables are collapsed into one another when it is analytically justified.2 This thesis will seek to follow Lijphardt’s guidelines as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, increasing the number of case studies beyond France and Russia is not practical. The only revolution of similarly comprehensive depth in terms of its uprooting of the political institutions was, as Skocpol points out, that which occurred in Qing China in 1911. Although the referents that Skocpol used to present the three revolutions as a triad are valid, for the purposes of this thesis’ analysis the Chinese case study is not helpful, as there is no single public woman to act as a point of reference for an analysis of gender ideas.3 To address another possible third case, Henrietta Maria, the spouse of England’s Charles I, was similarly attacked on national, gendered 1 Skocpol, Theda. States & Social Revolutions. Cambridge University Press, Ann Arbor, 1979. pp284-87. 2 Lijphardt, Arend, ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’ in The American Political Science Review, Vol 65, No 3, Sep 1971, pp686-91. 3 Empress Dowager Cixi does play a similar role to Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Fedorovna in many ways, but her status as a maternal figure rather than a spouse, not to mention the fact that she died before the events of 1911, means she is not suitable as a Chinese analogue for her French or Russian counterparts. This does not mean that an analysis of gender stereotypes in Chinese history and the manner in which they interacted with concepts of nationalism and tyranny, the latter of which in particular has an extremely rich grounding in Chinese political thought, would not be extremely interested, but without a central, high-profile political figure around which these concepts can coalesce the task is too weighty to be undertaken in this thesis. 7 and tyranny-based grounds by the groups who eventually overthrew her husband. But although Skocpol acknowledges parallels in cause, course and outcome between the English Civil War and the French revolution that could potentially offer fertile grounds for comparison, she ultimately concludes that they are not of a type.4 This means that, while the English case may prove a useful referent, it cannot form one of the central pillars of analysis. We are left with only two cases for comparison, something that, while unavoidable, has potentially serious consequences for the strength of any conclusion, and requires careful adherence to Lijphardt’s remaining guidelines. This is particularly true of the last guideline – simplifying and thus strengthening analysis by attempting where possible to combine multiple variables into one. It is an attempt to fulfil this requirement that forms the central task of this thesis, as it will take three superficially independent variables – namely the role played by nationalism in the revolutionary public discourse and the parallel roles played by gender and concepts of tyranny – and demonstrate that they effectively formed a single narrative that was most aptly displayed in converging criticisms of Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Fedorovna, where it became increasingly difficult to discern exactly on which grounds the Queen was being attacked. The causes of the French and Russian